Causing an accident but no contact

Main thing I've noticed watching that video is that most of those bikers were complete *****.
 
Last edited:
My friend has just been in a similar accident to the YT link where someone in the fast lane didn't see the stopped traffic infront of him, swerved into the path of my mate in the inside lane so he ditched it into a hedge to avoid the accident. Now there was no contact but the cause of the accident was the other driver however without any proof/evidence (the other driver didn't stop) the Police can't do anything.

PS I could fill a YT dashcam channel in seconds with the amount of "interesting" driving I see around Ashford and Maidstone on my daily commute. There's two of us in the office who do the same commute but about 30mins apart and the first thing we do when we meet is go through "what did you see today" and in 15 months there's been less than 10 days where it's been clear of idiots for both of us!
 
The RTA states that a reportable accident is one which occurrs "owing to the presence of a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road an accident occurs by which...injury or damage is caused"

As I understand it, there need not be contact for it to be considered a reportable accident? Don't get me wrong, many people, including insurance, work on the "no contact/no third party" mantra probably because it'd be so difficult to prove anything without hard evidence.

I have always wondered this though. If someone pulled out in front of you without looking and you managed to avoid them by 1mm and damaged your vehicle as a result, and you had decent witnesses/camera evidence - would the other persons insurance cough up? Would it be a reportable accident?
 
Jono8 said:
Lol, what happens at 3.41? Did the bike rider just understeer into those signs??
Click to expand...

Doesn't know how to lean, would love to know who it is so I can check their other videos :D

EDIT: Found it. Cba watching them, but in that clip it's not consistent at all and body position looks wrong but can't tell greatly from the POV. Swearies FsU_dXhuSUA
 
Last edited:
A mate of mine was driving out of his drive. He stopped at the dropped kerb to see a biker wobble then lay his bike down. The biker got up and blamed my mate. Saying " I thought you were going to pull out on me"


Settled 50:50. WTF.
My mate lost his NCB because another road user thought the wrong thing.
 
Gaygle said:
I have always wondered this though. If someone pulled out in front of you without looking and you managed to avoid them by 1mm and damaged your vehicle as a result, and you had decent witnesses/camera evidence - would the other persons insurance cough up? Would it be a reportable accident?
Click to expand...

Indeed, this is where I am confused on the actual legality of it. Dare I say you are better off going with the contact than avoiding and wrecking your own car :o
 
mattyg said:
A mate of mine was driving out of his drive. He stopped at the dropped kerb to see a biker wobble then lay his bike down. The biker got up and blamed my mate. Saying " I thought you were going to pull out on me"


Settled 50:50. WTF.
My mate lost his NCB because another road user thought the wrong thing.
Click to expand...

to be fair unless you can prove he was or wasnt it will end up like that annoyingly.
 
mattyg said:
A mate of mine was driving out of his drive. He stopped at the dropped kerb to see a biker wobble then lay his bike down. The biker got up and blamed my mate. Saying " I thought you were going to pull out on me"


Settled 50:50. WTF.
My mate lost his NCB because another road user thought the wrong thing.
Click to expand...

Well then your mate's a tool for settling.
 
Dis86 said:
He obviously didn't appeal the decision or refuse to accept their judgement. Ergo I stand by my first remark. I'd have seen it through to court.
Click to expand...

You're still only in a he said she said scenario though.

It would just come down to whether they believed you saying "I slowly and carefully approached the edge of the road" versus "He flew out of his drive and I had to take avoiding action to not get hit, resulting in me falling off"

As the film Law Abiding Citizen so aptly teaches us, it's not what you know, it's what you can prove in court.
 
Kenai said:
You're still only in a he said she said scenario though.

It would just come down to whether they believed you saying "I slowly and carefully approached the edge of the road" versus "He flew out of his drive and I had to take avoiding action to not get hit, resulting in me falling off"

As the film Law Abiding Citizen so aptly teaches us, it's not what you know, it's what you can prove in court.
Click to expand...

Yes, and in court they look independently at the evidence. Is their any evidence the party reversing caused an accident? No? Good bye then.
 
Dis86 said:
Yes, and in court they look independently at the evidence. Is their any evidence the party reversing caused an accident? No? Good bye then.
Click to expand...

It's there evidence he was involved though? Yes, he obviously exchanged insurance details,otherwise there would be no insurance dispute to take to court :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom